Congress shouldn’t sink more taxpayer dollars into the F-35 program

Taxpayers are once again being asked to throw more money at the Department of Defense’s long-troubled F-35 fighter program. Congress should, for once, say no.  

Despite spending trillions of taxpayer dollars that drove the highest rate of inflation in 40 years, Democrats in Congress failed to pass a spending bill to fund the defense budget prior to leaving Washington to campaign for the midterm elections. At the top of the agenda when Congress returns in November will be passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to determine the annual budget for the Pentagon.

Understandably, the Pentagon isn’t immune from the impact of inflation. Rising prices, workforce challenges and supply chain issues have all eaten away at the purchasing power of the defense budget. A new study released in September by the National Defense Industrial Association found that “from Fiscal Years (FY) 2021 to 2023, the total loss of buying power to the Department of Defense (DOD) from this unexpected inflation will exceed $110 billion dollars.” An NDAA reauthorization that simply maintains funding at existing levels would cause DOD to lose approximately $6 billion in buying power each month.

In response, Congress is readying a roughly 10 percent increase to the Pentagon’s budget. The Senate’s version of the NDAA passed out of the Armed Services Committee would authorize $847 billion in funding for the fiscal year 2023, a $77 billion increase from last year’s NDAA and $45 billion above President Biden’s initial budget request.  

Such a sizeable increase in the department’s spending necessitates that Congress safeguard taxpayers and trim unneeded fat from defense programs. Unfortunately, various defense contractors and lobbying interests within the Pentagon are still pushing to slip in additional spending on their pet projects.

Enter the over-budget and behind-schedule F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program seeking more money for new engines.  

The program’s inefficiencies are well documented. The program has long been the poster child of wasteful Pentagon spending for fiscal hawks and taxpayer organizations concerned with its rising costs. A 2021 Government Accountability Office report titled “F-35 Sustainment: Enhanced Attention to and Oversight of F-35 Affordability Are Needed” found the program’s sustainment costs ballooned by more than $150 billion since 2012. The report disclosed that due to the program’s rising costs the armed services “will collectively be confronted with tens of billions of dollars in sustainment costs that they project as unaffordable during the program.” 

The true cost of the program is likely even higher. DOD has not provided an acquisition cost estimate since December 2019, as the report notes. That 2019 estimate alone was a $22 billion cost increase from the department’s 2018 estimate.   

Despite these runaway costs, the Pentagon is back once again asking for more taxpayer money, this time with a proposal to replace rather than upgrade the program’s existing F135 engine with an entirely new propulsion system, the Adaptive Engine Transition Program, AETP.    

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall claims the engines alone would top more than $6 billion, roughly three times the cost of upgrading the existing F135 engine. But $6 billion will only be the beginning of additional costs. The Air Force would then need to sustain the new engine in service, requiring a new supply chain, new maintenance procedures, and a host of other add-ons to existing infrastructure.   

Rising costs have real consequences for our military’s preparedness. Kendall noted that funding AETP would result in nearly 70 fewer F-35s for our armed services moving forward — this comes at a time when national security and global tensions continue to rise with China and Russia.      

The AETP engine has another major drawback: it’s only feasible for the Air Force’s version of the F-35 and isn’t yet workable for the Marine Corps or Navy. Asking taxpayers to ramp up funding for an expensive and entirely new propulsion system that can only be used by one branch of the military smacks of a continuation of the unaffordable and irresponsible decision making that’s plagued the program for years.    

Now is not the time for Congress to ramp up unnecessary spending when acceptable lower-cost alternatives like simply upgrading the F135 engine exist.     

With inflation as a top economic concern in the midterm elections, voters are begging legislators to practice fiscal discipline. Congress has an opportunity here to finally rein in wasteful spending on the over-budget F-35 program. It should take this chance. 

 Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform.